Re: [boost] Guidelines on copyright notice maintenance

Subject: Re: [boost] Guidelines on copyright notice maintenance
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-07-04 07:52:08

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Mateusz Loskot via Boost
> Sent: 04 July 2018 00:27
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Cc: Mateusz Loskot
> Subject: [boost] Guidelines on copyright notice maintenance
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The license guidelines [1] include instructions on
> "How should Boost programmers apply the license to source and header files?"
> 
> Unless I've missed it, there seem to be lack of guidelines about
> how to maintain (existing) copyright notices.
> 
> I don't aim to resurrect the old lengthy thread from Sept 2015 on
> validity of copyright notices. In that thread, however,
> some guidelines or conventions were expressed:
> 
> [2] "because copyright is only claimed for changes meeting
>       a certain threshold of originality"
> [3] "It's up to those people to add a line if they so decide.
>       Copyright only covers expressions of creativity."
> 
> Those suggests, there seem to be common understanding on if/how/when
> it is recommended or even necessary to update copyright notice
> in a source file of a Boost library.
> 
> Wouldn't it be helpful to captured those as guidelines in the BSL FAQ.

Yes.

> Would there be someone knowledgeable about it and willing to
> make the update or at least explain it here?
> (I will make it into HTML and PR to boostorg/website)
> 
> I understand David and Beman, primary authors of the page [1],
> may no longer be available.
> 
> [1] https://www.boost.org/users/license.html
> [2] https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2015/09/225565.php
> [3] https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2015/09/225570.php

I think the above is about right.  (as an example, a version 2 library needs a new claim).
And someone taking over maintenance of a library needs to add a new claimant.

Also don't ever remove previous copyright claims - just add new claims  and/or claimants.  A reason for doing this is that it would
remove the earliest claim date, something that may establish a 'prior art' date that might prevent anyone patenting.

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal UK LA8 8AB
[phone]